Should businesses be allowed to deny fat/ugly people?

There are gay only hotels. They discriminate against straight people. But it's OK when they do it right?

 

That standard has been won in court. You are perfectly within your right to ask someone to leave who's actions or appearance is detrimental to the business or the majority of the customers on site. If anybody was being lewd, crude, or abusive the same standard would apply.

 

So they are not open to the general public, or up front about what they are doing there, and people choose not to go there?

 

The pizza business is also upfront about refusing to cater gay weddings. As the OP suggests, night clubs only allow certain people admittance, based on beauty. Other businesses discriminate based on dress codes.

 

Actually in 49 states you could exclude them because you dont like the way they part their hair if you wanted. Or ANY other reason as long as its not race, sex, religion, national origin and a few other, very specific protected classes.

And actually there was a case where a bar owner tried to exclude a tansvestite club from having weekly meetings at his bar. His regular customers were complaining and the bar was beginning to attract a gay clientele which brought more complaints and a loss of business. The bar owner lost.

 

only bad Capitalists do that.

 

Actually, many great capitalist with more business than they can handle sometimes do that.

 

yes; but that is usually, them.

 

Many liberals are on some kind of assistance or receiving a government pension, so they could care less about laws protecting private business owners, it's either you agree with their ideology or you're wrong.
It's like asking a kid if his allowance should increase.

 

which laws are so burdensome?

 

Which hotels?

 

Here's my stance on the gay/religious rights issue, I will use bakers or photographers as examples.

If a bakery refuses service to a customer just because the customer is gay, I think that the baker is discriminating.
Asking for a dozen fresh baked bagels does not put any kind of burden on the bakers religious convictions.
However, if a gay couple wants their wedding catered, or wants their wedding photographed, that would force the baker or photographer to attend the wedding and subject them to a lifestyle that goes against their religious beliefs, therefore discriminating against their constitutional rights.

Baking a birthday cake = okay, gay wedding cake = not okay.

Photographing a lesbian's graduation = okay, photographing her wedding = not okay.

 

You have it backwards, they can claim their Christianity and let customers choose if they want to do business with them. They cannot however discriminate in the name of religion. That is a no-no. If the gay people are being lewd, crude, or abusive then they can refuse them service and ask them to leave the property or be charged with trespassing.

Well in their eyes (not in their defense) they are protecting a certain standard their customers have come to expect, but I agree it is extremely callus and exclusive. Same as if a bunch of Carrie Nation temperance movement protesters attempted to gain access, they have the right to tell them no, and that they will not disrupt the business, on the property.

 

Uh no, legally they cannot be that trivial about who they refuse service. The entire 'right to refuse service for any reason' is in itself a myth in most states if the business is open to the general public. I'm sure there are anecdotal examples where people have gotten away with such stupidity, but the victims most likely didn't have the money to pursue it or extenuating circumstances led to the actual refusal of service, not just the hair part.

Judges misinterpret the law all the time. The business owner most likely didn't have the ability to purchase the justice he deserved. If they were being disruptive, or were chasing off the regular clientele with their actions, he most certainly had a right to protect his business from undesirables. Somebody just saw Trannies and assumed discrimination, which isn't always the case.

 

Where's the passage that says you're not permitted to bake gays a wedding cake?

 

Wearing swaztikas does not qualify as lewd, crude, or abusive, it qualifies as a right protected by the First Amendment. But I still think a restaurateur should have the right to throw them out on the simple grounds that they are advertising a privately held belief that the owner and his patrons find offensive.

 

There is a distortion

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not

It is clearly speaking about those that say they are Jews but do not actually keep to the commandments and laws. Not cool distorting it.

 

1 Corinthians 5:11New International Version (NIV)

11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

 

Yes it falls under the actions or appearance is detrimental to the business. Even if they are not jumping up and down hollering or what not their appearance could be running off other customers. The obvious exception would be of the protected classes, race, color, creed, sex, etc... But if somebody, black, white, brown, green, or orange, just fell in a sewer and came into a restaurant stinking to high heaven, or even if they just hadn't bathed in a few weeks and their odor was offensive enough to become a disturbance, it would be because they represent a detrimental environment for the business, and legally could be asked to leave, but not because they are black, white, brown, green, or orange.

You have a business open to the public, you cannot discriminate, for the sake of discriminating. You must have a legitimate reason to refuse someone product/service that is offered to the general public. You want to legally discriminate, make your business a by appointment/reference only establishment, that is not open to the public. That is the only loophole. Opinions don't matter.

 

Christians are idolaters (they worship a book)

 

Also, you're being very selective about your verse and taking it way out of context here.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--
not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked person from among you."

So shut up and get baking.

 

Why sacrifice the End of a moral of "goodwill toward men" to the means of the subjective value of morals?

- - - Updated - - -

such moral absolutism may be too much to ask from the right, simply for the sake of politics as usual.

 

So you eat alone? Isn't that about incest? And isn't that referring to expelling people from the Church?

So matters outside of Church it isn't your business or job to judge, that is left to God.

 

Where is that line defined, then? You say swaztikas fall into the category of being detrimental to business, so what about wearing the Confederate Battle Flag? Or the ISIS flag? What about wearing a Yankees jersey into a Red Sox themed bar? Who gets to decide whether it is or isn't detrimental to business? Who would know better than the business owner? What if the business owner knows that for the region he operates, having openly gay customers is detrimental to his business? Is that an exception, or is that still illegal discrimination?

 

Leviticus 21

18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God

how about the disabled, should they be allowed in church?

.